Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/39257
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/39257
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I am a scientist, and my first reaction to poorly argued questions is often to criticize the logic. Which I will do here, but before I do, I will say there is nothing inherently wrong with head-hopping if it is done right.

The bad logic here is arguing that because famous, one in a million authors have done something, it is fine for me to do it too. JK Rowling uses "-ly" adverbs all over the place, and she's the richest living author. Dan Brown's writing is heavily criticized, he's in the top 10. If you accept the logic that if something is in a million-seller book, it must be alright to do that, then we can find all sorts of terrible passages and practices in million-sellers that put together, would simply never sell. They are _excused_ because the mistakes are overwhelmed by the imagination of an ultra-genius story teller. And 99.99% of us, including me, are just not in their company.

That said, the problem with head-hopping is not cheating the reader, or leaving the reader feeling like they have been cheated. The same problem with omniscient, the same problem with even a single POV **inside** the character's thoughts and feelings.

When you expose the thoughts and feelings of multiple characters, there is an implied understanding by the reader that you **will** expose any **important** thoughts and feelings of those characters. Or, if your POV jumps by chapters or geography, that while you are in a POV, you will not conceal anything **important** from us about that character's thoughts and feelings.

I know there are exceptions, but in general, once most readers finish a passage on what Joe is thinking, and another on what Mary is thinking, they feel "privileged" to such knowledge, and if they find out later Joe or Mary had an important secret (a plot point, a reveal, etc), they feel cheated. They were supposed to be **informed** of any important thoughts Joe or Mary might have, and finding out later Joe was the villain all along feels like a cheat by the author.

As other posters here have said, you have created a "contract" with the reader by the narrator revealing the thoughts and feelings of character X: Obviously the narrator _always_ knows, so failing to report something important to the plot and story or guilt or innocence of X feels like a lie of omission, an intentional deception. Or when it comes out, it feels to the reader like an ass-pull.

These "contracts" with several or all main characters make writing some stories rather difficult, because so little can be kept from the reader without violating the contract. Sticking to a single POV character (or one at a time) with a _limited_ narrator (not omniscient) has two advantages: In the modern market, readers like character driven stories, and identifying with the characters, or at least their struggle. IRL we are not omniscient, and that is the source of many problems. We **don't** know what is truly in other people's heads. We **don't** know what will happen or how an experiment will turn out, like a truly omniscient narrator might reveal.

So it is actually easier (IMO) to write single POV stories, and stick to the discipline that requires. It feels more intimate and I can have things going on my MC doesn't know about, so it is easier to develop surprises, twists, and have failures occur that the MC (and reader) do not see coming.

So head-hopping can and has been used successfully, but because of the implicit contract you create with the reader, it is extremely easy to screw up and create a story the reader wants to throw against the wall. Don't point at masters for your justification. Like any art, they are masters **because** they were successful at something extremely difficult to pull off, and on top of that, it was in their time and for their audience, both of which may be extinct!

Original score: 7